On Point

State v. Fredrick J. Brissette, 230 Wis.2d 82, 601 N.W.2d 678 (Ct. App. 1999)
For Brissette: John D, Lubarsky, SPD, Madison Appellate

Issue: Whether failure to hold a probable cause hearing within 72 hours of the filing of a Ch. 980 petition causes the court to lose competency to proceed.

Holding: The 72-hour requirement for conducting the probable cause hearing does not begin running if the subject is in custody pursuant to independent process,

State v. Yolanda M. Spears, 227 Wis.2d 495, 596 N.W.2d 375 (1999), affirming State v. Spears, 220 Wis.2d 720, 585 N.W.2d 161 (Ct. App. 1998)
For Spears: Richard D. Martin. SPD, Milwaukee Appellate

Issue/Holding: Spears killed the “victim” (Young) after he assaulted her and took her purse. She entered an Alford plea to a homicide charge. At sentencing, a dispute arose as to whether Young actually used force in taking her purse (no dispute,

State v. Richard D. Yakes, 226 Wis.2d 425, 595 N.W.2d 108 (Ct. App. 1999)

Holding: Defendant’s adultery, failure to pay child support, and status as a bankrupt “were all appropriate factors relating to Yakes’ character and personal history.”

State v. David J. Gardner, 230 Wis. 2d 32, 601 N.W.2d 670 (Ct. App. 1999)
For Gardner: Steven P. Weiss, SPD, Madison Appellate

Gardner’s 30-year sentence is upheld as a proper exercise of discretion.

State v. Harry S. Bernstein, 231 Wis.2d 392, 605 N.W.2d 555 (Ct. App. 1999)
For Bernstein: Mary E. Waitrovich, SPD, Madison Appellate

Issue: After the state requests then withdraws a request for jury in a Ch. 980 proceeding, must trial to the court be premised on the respondent’s personal consent to this withdrawal?

Holding: Under § 980.05(2) the respondent’s consent to the state’s withdrawn assertion of jury trial need not be personal,

State v. Oto Orlik, 226 Wis.2d 527, 595 N.W.2d 468 (Ct. App. 1999)
For Orlik: Steven P. Weiss, SPD, Madison Appellate

Holding: Trial court lacks authority, under §§ 969.01 & 969.03, to impose no-contact order as condition of bail for someone who remains incarcerated. However, the separate procedure authorized in § 940.47 may be utilized in such a situation.

State v. Leo E. Wanta, 224 Wis.2d 679, 592 N.W.2d 645 (Ct. App. 1999)
For Wanta: James M. Shellow

HOLDING: Wanta argues that Wis. Stat. § 971.14(4)(b) is unconstitutional, because it requires proof of incompetence by clear and convincing evidence when the defendant claims that s/he is competent (vs. proof of competency by mere greater weight of evidence when the defendant claims incompetence). The court construes the challenge to be one of equal protection.

State v. Michael W. Farrell, 226 Wis.2d 447, 595 N.W.2d 64 (Ct. App. 1999)
For Farrell: Kevin M. Schram

Holding: Finding of incompetency subsequent to plea proceeding is a factor to consider but in and of itself neither creates doubt as to prior competency nor requires retrospective competency hearing.

State v. Tommy Lo, 228 Wis. 2d 531, 599 N.W.2d 659 (Ct. App. 1999)
For Lo: Margarita Van Nuland

Issue/Holding: “When there is a conflict between the court’s oral pronouncement of sentence and a written judgment of conviction, the oral pronouncement controls.”

State v. Liliana Petrovic, 224 Wis.2d 477, 592 N.W.2d 238 (Ct. App. 1999)
For Petrovic: Robert B. Rondini

Issue/Holding: Counsel’s cross of a detective elicited testimony that Petrovic refused to answer questions about her drug involvement during custodial examination. The court rejects her argument that counsel’s examination was deficient. Counsel “reasonably believed,” based on pretrial hearings that she had answered such questions (with denials). Counsel’s “unwittingly” eliciting testimony about her assertion of rights wasn’t unreasonable.